It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New study: 85% of Big Pharma's new drugs are "lemons" and pose health risks to users

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:43 AM

New study: 85% of Big Pharma's new drugs are "lemons" and pose health risks to users

Natural News article: For years, natural health proponents have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of new drugs being pushed on consumers. But is that a one-sided, inaccurate view? Not at all. In fact, new research now shows the problems with Big Pharma's hugely hyped medications are far worse than most people have even dreamed. Independent reviewers found that about 85 percent of new drugs offer few if any new benefits -- but they carry the risk of causing serious harm to user.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:43 AM
Finally, someone is providing evidence of what we all know to be true.

I haven't been able to find a link to the full report, so if anyone finds one I'd appreciate them posting the link.

An article in 'Science Daily', on this same report says:


According to his study, independent reviewers found that about 85 percent of new drugs offer few if any new benefits. Yet, toxic side effects or misuse of prescription drugs now make prescription drugs a significant cause of death in the United States.


Finally, there is independent, scientific evidence showing that BigPharma is really in the business of killing people.

If I were defending myself against charges related to providing organic food or alternative remedies, this report is something I would use in my defence.

I'm going to write to this guy and thank him. I pray that he remains safe.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:26 AM
Sadly big pharma and the government doesn't see this as a big thing, but rather they attach the killings and death of big pharma drugs to the undeniable side effects of drugs in the market to certain patients that can be sensitive to them, but occurs rather than extend trials to make the drugs safer they just let you be the Guinea pig and if you die then too bad.

That is how manufactured drugs has become the biggest profit making in this nation, and people still falls for them when their doctors tells them that they need them or they could die, still you will die either way.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:29 AM

New study: 85% of Big Pharma's new drugs are "lemons" and pose health risks to users

There is one drug that has been pulled by the gov for some time now but now is getting fast tracked to be deemed usable again. Maybe all of this pharma oval white pill with number 785784 that causes heart attacks and fries livers will seem obsolete in the near future. Again. Soon.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:47 AM
In order to avoid many unknowns, you can always ask the doctor if a generic version of the drug exists, which indicates that the drug have been on the market a long time and it's efficacy and track record should be better known than the "all new blockbuster" drug.

It seems the report can be obtained:
(look at bottom of the page).

While I certainly have no love for "big pharma", I found out the hard way that a lot of the vitamins and antioxidants (IV-use) are also made by the same "Big Pharma", so I don't think they are all rejecting the value of vitamins and antioxidants.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:51 AM
Please see this thread:

Very important.

Sometimes when my workplaces organizes collection of funds for cancer or some disease I never participate. People look at my oddly because I am against it.

I would love for them to find a cure but I know that there is no profit in a cure, so there will never be one.

All those donations are going to waste.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:10 AM
toxic psychiatry by Breggin
is a great book to read.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by slugger9787]

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:16 AM
Yes...lemons or worse. I mean who would take a drug whose potential side effects include cancer? Yet these kinds of drugs have made it onto the market.

Aside from all the profiteering aspects of discussions about pharma and regulations and their tie-ins to insurance companies and physicians and they way their pricing is done, I have mixed feelings about some of the ethics of regulation.

On the one hand it is vitally important that someone oversee the safety of the new drugs they're pushing on us. How do we accomplish this without the greed driving decisions?

On the other hand, it's criminal to withhold some drugs from some chronically ill and close to terminal patients too.

Why not allow people to sign waivers that they will not sue to be able to get these drugs that might save their lives? Who has the right to withhold them from people?

But yes, back on topic, there are a lot of very bad drugs out there, and a lot of quacks pushing them for reasons that have little to do with the Hippocratic oath. Physicians need to be called out.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:17 AM
Important report. S&F.

marg6043 nailed it. In science and business it's called a "risk-benefit analysis" - in the military it's called "collateral damage." ssdd

...Hope you keep this thread updated.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

why do you hate kathy griffin?

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:31 AM
Corruption, conflicts
Pharmaceutical money flows to the universities, it flows to those who do the research and to those who speak about the drugs and write up the reports. Those getting the money know the game is to spin the story to reflect well on the drugs. And you spin it at every step of the process, beginning with how the trials are designed, so it has led to corruption through and through.

[Interview 2005] Psychiatry's Untold History of Cruelty, Torture, Eugenics and Brain Damage

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:48 AM
Good post. I've been advocating this to friends and family for a couple years now. Big pharma is pushing whatever poison they can push past the FDA these days. On a personal note, I had knee surgery (both actually), and the first one landed me in the hospital a week later with a deep vein thrombosis in the calf. For 3 days they jabbed me with heparin and gave me warfarin/coumadin (rat poison) to thin the clot. For a year they obsessed over my blood thickness which corralled me into taking rat poison for a year before they stopped it. (I'm on medicaid so refusing treatment could revoke my eligibility)
When I confronted one of the nurses over my having to take rat poison, she replied clinically "yes it is rat poison, but we can control the dosage"

And I've also noticed a slurry of class action suits against pharma for critical side effects of their 'cures'. In my opinion, if POSSIBLE DEATH is a side effect of a medication, then perhaps it isn't a trustable concoction.

Unfortunately, big pharma has it all figured out. If you consult with a doctor, 99% of the time they are listening for symptoms so they can push perscriptions on you (hence the 5 minutes of 'quality time' with them). These medications produce side effects, and when you re-consult your doctor, they usually prescribe something else to offset the side effect, which in itself creates other side effects. So now you are taking 3 or 4 different meds for 1 symptom, but now you hae an array of symptoms that cannot be effectively diagnosed unless extensive labwork and testing is done (at a great expense). It's a dangerous trifecta of cataclysmic events.
Big pharma creates a new compound which will eventually treat something, which is in turn pushed by pharma salesmen (legal coke mules). The cyclic patterns come in 3's in the effect that pills=doctors=hospitals.
Let's face it, if big pharma created cures, they would be near bankruptcy and only have a handful of facilities. Health care is just another financially influenced battleground, and a sustainable war on healthcare does not incorporate cures. Cures are incredibly short term, and they cannot predict financial futures on cures (unless they create the disease to begin with), but they can make a fortune by treating symptoms.

It's good to know that many people are becoming aware of this

edit to add: I had also noticed that pharma is pushing their big sausage like fingers into the supplements industry (via manipulation of the Codex Alimentarius). They have 'perfected' the Omega 3 fish oil market (Lavasa I think it's called). It's purified Omega 3 oils in pharmaceutically manufactured engineering
. BUT, you can only get it through perscription. Apparently buying Omega3 at your health food store isn't 'healthy' anymore. Point here is that once that phenomenon takes hold, you will find it harder to find supplements without a perscription. Besides, I would still question what they unknowingly add to 'natural' supplements.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by OuttaTime]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:26 AM
reply to post by soficrow

Thanks sofi, you know I have become a victim of big pharma because I have high blood pressure, no because I am over weight or have hart disease, but because even after been fit all my life my blood pressure have also been high all my life still my doctor calls me a healthy person that happen to have high blood pressure that rises due to my emotional make over.

Funny, it doesn't get better even with 5 days of high impact aerobics a week.

I also get side effects from the blood pressure pills and they have been changed over and over again and my blood pressure still does whatever it wants.

I told my doctor that when I start to run off options I am getting off the medications and look for a naturalist to control it.

Then is drugs that you don't know how you will react to them until you are taking them and end up in the emergency room, I just had a chronic sinus infection for two months that required three rounds of antibiotics and the second round call Avalox make me blackout two times, then the last one call Bactrim send me to the emergency room with swelling all over my body

That is how it works you can just die trying.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:29 AM
reply to post by OuttaTime

The system of medical intervention in this country bases its phylosophy on allopathic treatment.

An allopathic doctor treats secondary signs and symptoms, he/she often does not diagnose and treat the primary disease.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:11 AM

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by OuttaTime

The system of medical intervention in this country bases its phylosophy on allopathic treatment.

An allopathic doctor treats secondary signs and symptoms, he/she often does not diagnose and treat the primary disease.

You're right about that. It's mind boggling the length and depth one goes through to recieve a Masters degree in medical science (and the massive debt it incurrs) just to give a patient 5 minutes to explain their medical health. I've had many doctors who kept their scrip blotter attached to their clipboard. Those types give an extensive discredit to the ones who wish their patients to be in outstanding health.
From many perspectives, todays medical staff are trained to perpetuate the failing health system in the fact that poisons are given out instead of cures. For example, if a person is diagnosed with cancer, the doctors recommend treatments that are known to cause cancer (radiation), and supress the body's natural defenses (chemo). After all, many cancers are a fungus, and can be oxidized or treated with penetrating light. But big pharma stands to capitalize from our illnesses, and would like to see everyone in the country taking some kind of pill, whether we're healthy or not.

It's time for a change in our system and the AMA, CDC, and FDA need a massive overhaul. Wouldn't you agree?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:12 PM
The numbers here are staggering. Doctors wrote 44 million prescriptions for Xanax and 27.7 million for Lexapro. Valium, the least popular on the list, was prescribed 14 million times. Which makes you wonder: Are we really so worked up? So sad? Or is something else to blame?

In 2009, the pharmaceutical industry spent $4.5 billion -- the budget of a small country -- marketing this stuff (a drop in the bucket, really, when you consider that Americans spend $200 billion a year on prescription meds). The chart doesn't make the direct connection, but it stands to reason that the crap we put in our bodies has everything to do with these ad dollars. Cymbalta launched into the list of top 10 psychiatric drugs last year, after being 16th in 2008. We'd be surprised if its TV spots, which air, oh, every other second, don't have something to do with it.

Here's the most, um, depressing part: When you tally up all the prescriptions doctors wrote, the figure actually outnumbers the U.S. population. So yeah, we're over-medicated. Something else to feel anxious about. -

So yer, I thought this was worth posting because I don't think people realise just how dependant on prescription drugs we are, especially Americans.

It is bad enough that prescription drugs have replaced healthy alternatives but now they are becoming the drug of choice for youngsters...

In recent years, the problem of prescription drug abuse has become more prevalent. Dr. Lawrence thinks at least part of the reason for that is that painkillers are being prescribed more often, making them easier for kids to find.

Often, they don't have to look any farther than the medicine cabinet in their own homes. Statistics back that up. Surveys conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 2009 and 2010 have found that prescription pills are becoming the drug of choice for many young people. The DEA studies have found:

* More kids abuse prescription drugs than smoke pot

* Most (70%) get pills from their parents' homes

* The average age of first-time recreational prescription users is just 12 years old

* Drug overdoses are the leading cause of accidental deaths in the United States

The danger of overdosing is just the tip of the iceberg. Once someone starts using prescription medications recreationally, it's easy to become addicted. Eventually, Dr. Lawrence says, most people get to a point where they cannot afford to keep up their prescription drug habit, so they turn to heroin - which has some of the same ingredients and helps them achieve the same effects, but is much cheaper. -

This is the one form of drug abuse that you will not hear about in your mainstream news because it is far too profitable to Big Pharma and those within the government who hold personal interests.

They are legal but they are lethal.

Related: On Being Sane In Insane Places

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:20 PM
The four philosophical paradigms for treatment/diagnosis of disease are as follows:

Allopathic- do not worry about the primary dx (disease) treat the secondary signs and symptoms

Osteopathic- find discover the primary dx and treat it

Homeopathic/Naturopathic- treat primary dx with natural occuring compounds and concoctions.

Allopathic paradigm of all these is wrought with IATROGENIC dx.
Iatrogenic is physician (caregiver induced)
Example-- admited with dx of appendicitis, appendix removed, die a week later with systemic infection.
Example- go to Dr. in early stage of alcoholism, complain of anxiety and depression and insomnia, walk out with an Rx of meds.
It actually exacerbates and accelerates the progrss of the primary dx alcoholism.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:09 PM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Yes...lemons or worse. I mean who would take a drug whose potential side effects include cancer? Yet these kinds of drugs have made it onto the market.

It seems to me that the more "unnatural" substances that we consume the higher our risk for cancer. Industrialization seems to (to me at least) be the largest correlation with the rise in cancer. It's next to impossible to live a life free of chemical fumes, food additives, or some form of radiation. You would have to pack your bags back to the stone age to succeed in that sense.

Does anyone have figures on how much money Big Gov't gets from Big Pharma? Or maybe the overall profitability of Big Pharma as an industry?

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:54 AM

Originally posted by canderson180

Does anyone have figures on how much money Big Gov't gets from Big Pharma? Or maybe the overall profitability of Big Pharma as an industry?

Actually, is the other way around, for years big pharma gets subsidies from tax payers to the pursue of the research of new drugs, this tax payer money keep big pharma tax revenues to the government at a limited lost.

Meaning that we tax payer no only support them as milking cows in the health care system but also support them with tax incentives.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by slugger9787

"Dr. Light pointed out that despite the extensive requirements for testing the efficacy and safety of each new medication, drug companies use a strategy of "swamping the regulator" with large numbers of incomplete, partial, and substandard clinical trials. For instance, in one study of 111 final applications for approval, 42% lacked adequately randomized trials, 40% had flawed testing of dosages, 39% lacked evidence of clinical efficacy, and 49% raised concerns about serious adverse side effects..."

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in